language teaching research · 2013. 4. 30. · norbert schmitt university of nottingham, uk this...

http://ltr.sagepub.com

Language Teaching Research

DOI: 10.1177/1362168808089921 2008; 12; 329 Language Teaching Research

Norbert Schmitt Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/329 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language Teaching Research Additional services and information for

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/3/329 Citations

at Kantons und on May 16, 2010 http://ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/3/329


Language Teaching Research 12,3 (2008); pp. 329–363

© 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) 10.1177/1362168808089921

Review articleInstructed second language vocabularylearningNorbert Schmitt University of Nottingham, UK

This article overviews current research on second language vocabulary learning. Itconcludes that a large vocabulary is necessary to function in English: 8000–9000word families for reading, and perhaps as many as 5000–7000 families for oraldiscourse. In addition, a number of word knowledge aspects need to be learned abouteach lexical item. Taken together, this amounts to a substantial lexical learningchallenge, one which many/most learners fail to meet. To facilitate adequatevocabulary learning, four vocabulary learning partners (students, teachers, materialswriters, and researchers) need to contribute to the learning process. Vocabularylearning programs need to include both an explicit, intentional learning componentand a component based around maximizing exposure and incidental learning. Thefour learning strands (meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development) suggested by Nation (2001) provide astructure by which to integrate intentional and incidental vocabulary learning. Theoverriding principle for maximizing vocabulary learning is to increase the amount ofengagement learners have with lexical items. All four learning partners need toacknowledge the incremental nature of vocabulary learning, and to develop learningprograms which are principled, long-term, and which recognize the richness andscope of the lexical knowledge that needs to be mastered.

Keywords: depth of knowledge, engagement, intentional and incidental learning,vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary instruction, vocabulary size

I Introduction

One thing that students, teachers, materials writers, and researchers can allagree upon is that learning vocabulary is an essential part of mastering asecond language. However, the best means of achieving good vocabularylearning is still unclear, partly because it depends on a wide variety of factors(e.g. de Groot, 2006), and so it is perhaps not surprising that teachersand learners have often been unsure of the best way to pursue it, especially astextbooks and syllabuses have typically been negligent in providing clear

Address for correspondence: Norbert Schmitt, Department of English Studies, University ofNottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; email: [email protected]



descriptions and guidelines. Luckily, there is now a very substantial researchliterature available on vocabulary learning, although much of it has been slowto filter into mainstream pedagogy. This article will overview as much of thisresearch as possible, focusing on the most recent studies, and will highlightwhat I believe are the pedagogical lessons that can be learned. (See Read,2004, for another relatively recent review of research into vocabulary teaching,with a listing of useful websites.)

ll The scope of the vocabulary learning challenge

1 Vocabulary size

A good starting point is to outline reasonable vocabulary learning goals. In orderto do this, we must first determine the percentage of lexical items1 in writtenor spoken discourse that a learner must know in order to understand it. It waspreviously thought that around 95% coverage was sufficient (Laufer, 1989), butmore recent research suggests that the figure is closer to 98–99% (Hu & Nation,2000), at least for written discourse.2 98% coverage would mean that one wordin 50 is unknown, which still does not make comprehension easy (Carver,1994), and so this is probably a reasonable minimum coverage figure.

If we use this figure for spoken discourse, and also assume that the propernouns in the discourse are known, we can estimate the number of word familiesit takes to be able to engage in informal daily conversation. Nation (2006)analyzed about 200,000 words of the Wellington Corpus of Spoken English,which included talk-back radio, interviews, and friendly conversationbetween family members and friends. Using word lists based on (the mainlywritten) British National Corpus, he calculated that 6000–7000 word familiesare required to reach the 98% goal. An analysis of the spoken CANCODEcorpus (Adolphs and Schmitt, 2003) found coverage figures congruent withNation’s at the 3000 word family level (the upper limit of their analysis),supporting Nation’s calculations.

However, it is not clear whether a 98% coverage figure is the most appropriatefor dealing with spoken discourse. Of course, knowledge of more vocabulary isalways better, but two studies have indicated that substantial comprehensioncan occur with lower coverage rates. Bonk (2000) found no absolute lexicalpercentage ‘threshold’, but learners who knew less than 80% of the lexicalwords tested in the target passages almost always had poor comprehension,43% of those who knew 80–89% achieved good comprehension, while 60% ofthose who knew more than 90% of the lexical words had good comprehension.These coverage figures included most, but not all, of the lexical (content)words in the passages, but did not take account of the remaining contentwords (e.g. words like wife, house, and night, which were high-frequency), or the function words. Assuming these were known, we can calculate the coverage figures for all of the running words in the passages: Bonk’s 80% (lex-ical target words) translates to about 90% of all of the running words; likewise,

330 Instructed second language vocabulary learning



his 90% (lexical) works out to about 95% (running words). This means Bonkfound that knowledge of less than 90% of the running words in passage usu-ally led to inadequate comprehension, while it took knowledge of 95% or moreof the running words to enable the majority of participants to achieve goodcomprehension. Thus Bonk’s results for listening comprehension suggest acoverage figure of 95%, rather than 98%.

A study by Larson and Schmitt (under review) suggests that a coveragefigure as low as 90% might be adequate. They found that university postgradu-ate students gained just as much comprehension from passages with 95%known words as from 100% known words, and from passages with 90% cov-erage as from 97.5% coverage. The students comprehended, on average, overhalf of the idea units in the 90% coverage passages, and two-thirds to three-quarters in the 95% and 97.5% passages. Based on the CANCODE tables fromAdolphs and Schmitt (2003), they estimate that if only 90% coverage isrequired, the amount of vocabulary needed would be under 800 word familiesor under 1400 individual words, and if 95% coverage were required, then theamount needed would be over 2000 families and close to 4000 words. Nation(2006), analyzing the Wellington corpus, calculated that 95% coverage wouldrequire knowledge of about 3000 word families, plus proper nouns. In addition,Staehr (under review) found that advanced Danish listeners who knew the 5000most frequent word families in English were also able to demonstrate adequatelistening ability on the Cambridge-ESOL Certificate of Proficiency in English(CPE) listening exam. Being conservative and withholding judgement on the90% coverage finding, the current evidence suggests that it requires between2000–3000 word families to understand spoken English (if 95% coverage isadequate) or between 6000–7000 word families if 98% coverage is needed.However, there is simply not enough evidence to confidently establish a cov-erage requirement for listening at the moment.

For estimates of written vocabulary, we are on firmer ground. Nation(2006) went on to calculate that 8000–9000 word families are necessary toread a range of authentic texts (e.g. novels or newspapers), based on BritishNational Corpus (BNC) data and 98% coverage. Inevitably, other indicatorspoint to somewhat lower figures. For example, Milton and Hopkins (2006)report that both the highest level (C2) of the Common European Frameworkand the CPE require only about 4500–5000 word families. However, carefulscrutiny of the C2 level suggests that 4500–5000 word families would not besufficient to achieve many/most of the descriptors.3 Therefore, while learnersmay be able to cope with a smaller vocabulary, 8000–9000 word familiesseems to be a more realistic target if they wish to read a wide variety of textswithout unknown vocabulary being a problem.

These figures may seem daunting, but even so, they probably underesti-mate the learning challenge. Each word family includes several individualword forms, including the root form (stimulate), its inflections (stimulated,stimulating, stimulates), and regular derivations (stimulation, stimulative).Nation’s (2006) BNC lists show that the most frequent 1000 word families

Norbert Schmitt 331



average about six members (types per family), decreasing to about three mem-bers per family at the 9000 frequency level. According to his calculations,a vocabulary of 6000 word families (enabling listening) entails knowing28,015 individual word forms, while the 8000 families (enabling wide read-ing) entails 34,660 words, although some of these family members are verylow frequency items. Sometimes these word family members are transparentlyrelated (nation–national) and relatively guessable if unknown. However, thisis not always the case (nation–nationalistically), and learners may have trou-ble with these less-transparent members, especially in terms of production.While Horst and Collins (2006) found a growing morphological productiveability in their French learners of English over 100, 200, 300, and 400 hoursof instruction, Schmitt and Zimmerman’s (2002) advanced learners of English(preparing to enter English-medium universities) typically knew only some,but not all, of the noun/verb/adjective/adverb members of word families takenfrom the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000). Thus, it cannot be assumedthat knowing one word family member implies knowing (or being able toguess) other related members.

The upshot is that learners must learn a very large number of lexical items tobe able to operate in English, especially considering that the above figures donot take into account the multitude of phrasal lexical items, which have beenshown to be extremely widespread in language use (e.g. Schmitt, 2004; Wray,2002). Learning such a large number of lexical items is one of the greatest hur-dles facing learners in acquiring English. It is not surprising then, that thevocabulary sizes of learners reported in research studies typically fall wellshort of the size requirements reported above (Laufer, 2000; see Table 1).

The scope of the vocabulary learning task, and the fact that many learnersfail to achieve even moderate vocabulary learning goals, indicates that it can


Table 1 English vocabulary size of foreign learnersa

Country Vocab. Hours of Referencesize instructionb (re-size)

Japan EFL University 2000 800–1200 Shillaw 19952300 Barrow et al. 1999

China English majors 4000 1800–2400 Laufer 2001Indonesia EFL University 1220 900 Nurweni & Read 1999Oman EFL University 2000 1350� Horst et al. 1998Israel High school graduates 3500 1500 Laufer 1998France High school 1000 400 Arnaud et al. 1985Greece Age 15, high school 1680 660 Milton & Meara 1998Germany Age 15, high school 1200 400 Milton & Meara 1998

Notes: a The table is taken from Laufer, 2000: 48, slightly adapted.b The data on hours of instruction was largely obtained by Laufer’s personal com-munication with colleagues from the respective countries.



no longer be assumed that an adequate lexis will simply be ‘picked up’ fromexposure to language tasks focusing either on other linguistic aspects or oncommunication. Rather, a more proactive, principled approach needs to betaken in promoting vocabulary learning, which will require contributionsfrom four learning ‘partners’. Most importantly, students need the willingnessto be active learners over a long period of time, for without this, they areunlikely to achieve any substantial vocabulary size, regardless of the qualityof instruction. But they will need guidance about which lexical items to learn,and perhaps help in developing effective learning techniques. Teachers arewell placed to provide this guidance, but their experience may not be enough initself to provide the guidance without help. For example, research indicates thatnative-speaker intuitions of word frequency appear limited to differentiatingbetween very frequent and very infrequent words, with teachers performing nobetter than first-year university undergraduates (McCrostie, 2007). Thus evennative-speaking teachers cannot always rely on their intuitions to identify morefrequent (and thereby generally more useful) words of English, and so theyshould consult frequency lists in conjunction with their intuitions (e.g. Leech,Rayson, & Wilson, 2001). This highlights the role of the researcher, whoseexpertise and resources are necessary in providing reliable information aboutvocabulary itself (such as frequency lists), and effective methods of learning it.The fourth partner is materials writers, who are an obvious conduit for delivering this research-based information to teachers and learners in a formthat is usable. Given the magnitude of the lexical learning task, it is unlikelythat it can be achieved without strong and active contributions from all fourmembers of this learning partnership, and the failure of any partner mightdoom the whole enterprise to failure.

2 Depth of vocabulary knowledge/the incremental nature of vocabulary learning

In addition to needing a large number of lexical items, a learner must alsoknow a great deal about each item in order to use it well. This is often referredto as the quality or ‘depth’ of vocabulary knowledge, and is as important asvocabulary size. Many teachers and learners consider a word ‘learned’ if thespoken/written form and meaning are known. While it is true that theform–meaning link is the first and most essential lexical aspect which mustbe acquired, and may be adequate to allow recognition, a learner needs toknow much more about lexical items, particularly if they are to be used pro-ductively. Nation (2001, p. 27) provides the best description of the range of‘word knowledge’ aspects which need to be known (Table 2).

These various types of word knowledge become important when thinkingabout acquisition and pedagogy for a number of reasons. First, some of theseword knowledge aspects are relatively amenable to intentional learning, suchas word meaning and word form, while the more contextualized aspects, such as

Norbert Schmitt 333



collocation and intuitions of frequency, are much more difficult to teachexplicitly. They probably have to be acquired instead through massive expo-sure to the L2. This suggests that a vocabulary learning program will requireboth an explicit teaching component, and a component which maximizesrepeated exposures to lexical items, such as extensive reading. In addition,although all of the word knowledge types are learned concurrently, some aremastered sooner than others (Schmitt, 1998). This implies that different teach-ing approaches may be appropriate at the different stages of acquisition of anitem. At the beginning, an explicit approach which focuses directly on estab-lishing the form–meaning link can be most effective, while later, the exposureapproach can be most beneficial in enhancing contextual knowledge.Similarly, the word knowledge table highlights the necessity of thinking ofvocabulary learning in incremental terms. It is well established that lexicalitems need to be met many times in order to be learned (Nation, 2001), but thetable shows that this is not just to consolidate the form–meaning link, but alsoto enhance knowledge of an item by developing the other types of word


Table 2 What is involved in knowing a word

Form: Spoken R What does the word sound like?P How is the word pronounced?

Written R What does the word look like?P How is the word written and spelled?

Word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word?P What word parts are needed to express

this meaning?Meaning: Form and R What meaning does this word form

meaning signal?P What word form can be used to express

this meaning?Concept and R What is included in the concept?

referentsP What items can the concept refer to?

Associations R What other words does this make usthink of?

P What other words could we use instead of this one?

Use: Grammatical R In what patterns does the word occur?functions

P In what patterns must we use this word?Collocations R What words or types of words occur with

this one?P What words or types of words must we

use with this one?Constraints on use R Where, when and how often would we

(register, frequency…) expect to meet this word?P Where, when and how often can we use

this word?



knowledge. Words will have to be met in many different contexts in order todevelop mastery of the different word knowledge types, and this entails along-term recursive approach to vocabulary learning. Indeed, some researchsuggests that single episodes of instruction may not only be ineffective, butmay actually be counterproductive under certain circumstances. Chang andRead (2006) found that vocabulary instruction before a listening comprehensiontask helped less than hearing the input twice or reading and discussing thetopic beforehand. Crucially, the students reported that they did not learn thetarget vocabulary well enough to utilize it in the on-line listening task, and forhigher proficiency students, a focus on this inadequately learned vocabularyseemed to distract their attention away from a more general understanding ofthe listening passages.

It is also useful to think of depth of knowledge in terms of receptive vs. pro-ductive levels of mastery, with the receptive lexicon always proving larger thanthe productive one (e.g. Laufer, 2005). Likewise, the ability to use words inwritten and spoken discourse is not equivalent. Milton and Hopkins (2006)compared the written and spoken English vocabulary sizes of Greek- andArabic-speaking learners, and found that the written was generally larger(mean written size: 2655 words; spoken: 2260). The correlation between thetwo sizes was moderate (0.68), but varied according to L1: Greek 0.81; Arabic0.65). Similarly, Larson and Schmitt (under review) found that written vocabu-lary recognition was higher than spoken recognition at three frequency levels:1000 (W 98%, S 92%), 2000 (W 95%, S 90%), and 3000 (W 95%, S 87%),with an overall correlation of between written and spoken recognition of 0.56.Milton and Hopkins also found that the spoken/written relationship variedaccording to proficiency: for both language groups, low scores tend to be asso-ciated with a greater tendency for phonological vocabulary knowledge toexceed orthographic vocabulary knowledge, but for high scorers, the reversewas true. Thus we cannot assume a straightforward relationship between thewritten and spoken knowledge of words in a learner’s lexicon, although thesedo seem to generally increase in parallel manner.

III Issues in vocabulary acquisition and pedagogy

1 The importance of word form

As mentioned above, the first step in the vocabulary acquisition process isestablishing an initial form–meaning link, and this is what the vast majorityof vocabulary materials and activities attempt to do. However, a commonassumption seems to be that learning the meaning is of key importance, whilethe form element is either downplayed or disregarded. In fact, there is a largebody of research indicating that L2 learners often have trouble with the wordform. For example, Laufer (1988) studied words4 with similar forms and foundthat some similarities were particularly confusing for students, especially

Norbert Schmitt 335



words that were similar except for suffixes (comprehensive/comprehensible)and for vowels (adopt/adapt). Similarly, Bensoussan and Laufer (1984) foundthat a mis-analysis of word forms, which looked transparent but were not,sometimes led to misinterpretation. Their learners interpreted outline (whichlooks like a transparent compound) as ‘out of line’, and discourse (which looksas if it has a prefix) as ‘without direction’. Moreover, it is not only the formsof the words themselves that can lead to problems. Regardless of the worditself, if there are many other words that have a similar form in the L2 (i.e. largeorthographic neighborhoods (Grainger and Dijkstra, 1992)), it makes confu-sion more likely. For example, the word poll may not be difficult in itself, butthe fact that there are many other similar forms in English can lead to potentialconfusion (pool, polo, pollen, pole, pall, pill).

One reason that people can learn their L1 so easily is that the mindbecomes attuned to the features and regularities in the L1 input (Doughty,2003; Ellis, 2006). This developmental sharpening applies to the word formas well, as people become attuned to the particular set of phonemes andgraphemes in their L1, and the ways in which they combine. This specializa-tion makes L1 processing efficient, but can cause problems when there is anattempt to process an L2 in the same way, even though the two languages mayhave different characteristics. For example, English speakers use mainlystress to parse words in the speech stream, while French speakers rely moreon syllable cues. Cutler and her colleagues have found that both French andEnglish speakers used their L1 cue processing strategies when learning theother language as an L2, causing problems for both groups (e.g. Cutler et al., 1986; Cutler & Norris, 1988). The same type of mismatch has beenfound in the processing of written language, for example, between Chineseand English (e.g. Koda, 1997, 1998). What this means is that learners not onlyhave to learn new oral and written forms in the L2, but they may also have todevelop a completely new way of processing those forms, one which is inopposition to the automatic processes in their L1. The effect of this shows upin laboratory experiments, where de Groot (2006) found that L2 words thatmatch L1 orthographical and phonological patterns are easier to learn and areless susceptible to forgetting than L2 words that are atypical.

Thus, while Ellis (1997) argues that form is mainly acquired through exposure,it is clear that this may not occur without problems in an L2. It can thereforemake sense to allot attention to learning form, especially as knowing it canaid other aspects of vocabulary learning. Bogaards (2001) found that know-ing the form of lexical items aided subsequent vocabulary learning for thoseitems, such as learning additional polysemous meaning senses. However, ifform is to be addressed in vocabulary exercises, it needs to have a directfocus, and not just be an ‘add-on’ to meaning. This is because the mind has afinite processing capacity, and any attention given to meaning will diminishthe resources available for attention to form, and vice-versa (Barcroft, 2002).




2 The role of the L1 in L2 vocabulary learning

There is no doubt from the research that the L1 exerts a considerable influenceon the learning and use of L2 vocabulary in a number of ways (Swan, 1997).In terms of learner output, Hemchua and Schmitt (2006) studied the lexicalerrors in Thai university EFL compositions, and found that nearly one-quarterwere judged to be attributable to L1 influence. But for verb–noun collocationerrors in particular, the percentage may be over 50% (Nesselhauf, 2003).Learners also typically employ their L1 in learning an L2, most noticeably inthe consistently high usage of bilingual dictionaries (Schmitt, 1997). They alsostrongly believe that translating helps them to acquire English language skills,such as reading, writing, and particularly vocabulary words, idioms, andphrases (Liao, 2006). But perhaps the best evidence for L1 influence comesfrom psycholinguistic studies, which demonstrate that the L1 is active duringL2 lexical processing in both beginning and more-advanced learners (e.g. Hall, 2002; Jiang, 2002; Sunderman & Kroll, 2006).

Although it is unfashionable in many quarters to use the L1 in second lan-guage learning, given the ubiquitous nature of L1 influence, it seems perfectlysensible to exploit it when it is to our advantage. One case where there is a clearadvantage is in establishing the initial form–meaning link. Prince (1996) foundthat more newly learned words could be recalled using L1 translations than L2context, particularly for less-proficient learners. With secondary schoolMalaysian learners, using L1 translations was much more effective than pro-viding L2-based meanings (Ramachandran & Rahim, 2004). Laufer andShmueli (1997) found the same trend with Hebrew students. Lotto and de Groot(1998) found that L2–L1 word pairs lead to better learning than L2-picturepairs, at least for relatively experienced foreign language learners.

There are also compelling psycholinguistic arguments why the establish-ment of the initial form–meaning link might benefit from the use of the L1. Ithas been hypothesized that the initial form–meaning link consists of the newL2 word form being attached to a representation of the corresponding L1 wordwhich already exists in memory (Hall, 2002), so an L1 translation is a naturalvehicle for achieving this, such as with L2-L1 word cards. Furthermore, weknow that learning word form can be problematic, so using the L1 to facilitatethe form–meaning linkage (by providing an easy access to meaning) may allowmore cognitive resources to be focused on form (Barcroft, 2002). Then, once thelink is established, there will be more resources freed up to allot to the learningof the more contextualized types of word knowledge. Given the cognitive con-straints inherent in learning an L2, it is unlikely that learners will absorb muchcontextualized knowledge at the beginning stages anyway, which suggeststhere is little disadvantage to using the L1 to establish initial meaning. Afterthis initial stage, however, the advantages of meeting the new lexical item inL2 contexts become important to enhance contextual word knowledge, and sothe value of the L1 lessens. Thus, it can be argued that using the L1 may be

Norbert Schmitt 337



appropriate at some stages along the vocabulary learning process, but notothers, which suggests using different teaching methods at different stages ofvocabulary learning.

3 Engagement with vocabulary

It is a commonsense notion that the more a learner engages with a new word,the more likely they are to learn it. There have been a number of attempts todefine this notion more precisely. Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) Depth/Levelsof Processing Hypothesis laid the basic groundwork by stating that the moreattention given to an item, and the more manipulation involved with the item,the greater the chances it will be remembered. Hulstijn and Laufer (2001)refined the notion further and suggested that involvement for vocabularylearning consists of three components: need, search, and evaluation. Need isthe requirement for a linguistic feature in order to achieve some desired task,such as needing to know a particular word in order to understand a passage.Search is the attempt to find the required information, for example, lookingup the meaning of that word in a dictionary. Evaluation refers to the com-parison of the word, or information about a word, with the context of use todetermine if it fits or is the best choice. The authors found some support fortheir hypothesis: learners writing compositions remembered a set of targetwords better than those who saw the words in a reading comprehension task,and learners who supplied missing target words in gaps in the reading textremembered more of those words than learners who read marginal glosses. Inboth comparisons, the ‘better learning’ case had higher involvement accord-ing to Hulstijn and Laufer’s scheme. They also reviewed a number of studiesand found that the tasks with relatively more need, search, and evaluationelements were more effective (Table 3).

While this is almost certainly true, research also shows that many other fac-tors make a difference as well. For example, while Hulstijn and Laufer’sInvolvement Load Hypothesis is useful for materials writers to set up goodmaterials that can facilitate incidental vocabulary learning, it does not take thestudent into account. Students can scan, engage, and interpret in many differ-ent ways, regardless of material design, and there is little way to know inadvance exactly how (Joe, 2006). Students’ motivation and attitudes alsomatter, as even the best materials are little good if students do not engage withthem. Moreover, there is an effect for students’ strategic behavior. It appearsthat vocabulary learning is part of a cyclical process where one’s self-regulation of learning leads to more involvement with and use of vocabularylearning strategies, which in turn leads to better mastery of their use. Thisenhances vocabulary learning, the effectiveness of which can then be self-appraised, leading to a fine-tuning of self regulation and the start of a newcycle (Tseng and Schmitt, in press).




There is a range of other factors that recur throughout the literature asfacilitating vocabulary learning, including the following:

• increased frequency of exposure;• increased attention focused on the lexical item;• increased noticing of the lexical item;• increased intention to learn the lexical item;• a requirement to learn the lexical item (by teacher, test, syllabus);• a need to learn/use the lexical item (for task or for a personal goal);• increased manipulation of the lexical item and its properties;• increased amount of time spent engaging with the lexical item;• amount of interaction spent on the lexical item.

Overall, it seems that virtually anything that leads to more exposure, attention,manipulation, or time spent on lexical items adds to their learning. In fact, eventhe process of being tested on lexical items appears to facilitate better retention,as research designs that include multiple post-tests usually lead to better resultson the final delayed post-test than similar designs with fewer or no intermedi-ate post-tests (e.g. Mason and Krashen, 2004). There does not seem to be onecover term that encompasses all of these involvement possibilities, and so inthis paper I will use the hopefully transparent term engagement. In essence,anything that leads to more and better engagement should improve vocabulary

Norbert Schmitt 339

Table 3 Relative effectiveness of vocabulary learning methods

The more The less Studyeffective task effective task

Meaning selected Meaning explained Hulstijn 1992from several by synonymoptions

Meaning looked Reading with/ Knight 1994; up in a dictionary without guessing Luppescu & Day 1993

Meaning looked up Meaning provided in Hulstijn et al. 1996in a dictionary a marginal gloss

Meaning negotiated Meaning not negotiated Newton 1995Negotiated input Premodified input Ellis et al. 1994Used in original Used in non-original Joe 1995, 1998

sentences sentencesUsed in a composition Encountered in a Hulstijn and

(Ll-L2 look up) reading task Trompetter 1998(L2-L1 look up)

Interactionally modified Interactionally Ellis & He 1999output modified input

Reading and a series of Reading only (and Paribakht & Weschevocabulary exercises inferring meaning) 1997

Reading, words looked Reading only, words Cho & Krashen 1994up in a dictionary not looked up



learning, and thus promoting engagement is the most fundamental task forteachers and materials writers, and indeed, learners themselves.

4 Phrasal vocabulary

The discussion so far has focused on words and not phrasal items, mainlybecause most vocabulary research to date has primarily focused on individualwords. This is despite the fact that phrasal vocabulary is (1) very widespreadin language (Wray, 2002), (2) used for a number of purposes, includingexpressing a message or idea (The early bird gets the worm � do not procras-tinate), realizing functions ([I’m] just looking [thanks] � declining an offer ofassistance from a shopkeeper), establishing social solidarity (I know what youmean � agreeing with an interlocutor), and transacting specific information ina precise and understandable way (Blood pressure is 150 over 70) (Schmitt andCarter, 2004), and (3) allows more fluency in production (Wood, 2006; Kuiper,2004). Michael Lewis and colleagues (1993, 2000) have argued for a languageteaching methodology highlighting phrasal vocabulary, but the effectiveness ofsuch an approach has not yet been empirically demonstrated. However, thesmall amount of research available suggests that highlighting phrasal languageto learners can have an impact. Jones and Haywood (2004) focused on phrasalvocabulary in a 10-week EAP class, and found that the students became muchmore aware of phrasal vocabulary by the end of the course, showed a slightimprovement in the production of phrases in C-tests, but demonstrated nonoticeable improvement in their output of phrases in composition writing.Boers et al. (2006) found that learners who were exposed to considerable lis-tening and reading and made aware of the phrasal vocabulary in that inputwere later judged to be more orally proficient than learners who received thesame input but were taught with a traditional grammar–lexis dichotomy.A number of scholars have suggested bringing corpus data into the classroomfor learners to analyze. Kennedy and Miceli (2000) found that this approachprovided benefits, but that even with a substantial and principled training regi-men in place, their students still had problems using corpus analysis well. Itseems quite difficult to train students to use a corpus with the necessaryrigour, and to foster a ‘researcher’ attitude.

IV Intentional learning of vocabulary

The currently favored language teaching paradigm highlights a focus onmeaning-based learning, where language features are learned by using themrather than by focusing on them explicitly, but with a supplementary focuson language forms (e.g. explicit grammar teaching) when necessary(e.g. Doughty and Williams, 1998). However, while it can be argued thatthis works for building proficiency of the four skills or grammatical structures,




there are good reasons to believe that vocabulary requires a different approachwhich incorporates explicit attention to learning the lexical items themselves:

• learners who understand the overall message often do not pay attentionto the precise meanings of individual words

• guessing from context is often unreliable, especially if the learner doesnot know 98% of the words in the discourse

• words which are easily understood (guessed) from context may not generate enough engagement to be learned and remembered

• new words which learners have met in discourse need to be met again relatively quickly to avoid their being forgotten. In order for words to be met 10 times in reading, learners would need to read 1–2 graded readersper week. The typical learner simply does not read this much.

(Laufer, 2005)

However, the main reason for an explicit focus on vocabulary is that it iseffective: although research has demonstrated that valuable learning canaccrue from incidental exposure (see below), intentional vocabulary learning(i.e. when the specific goal is to learn vocabulary, usually with an explicitfocus) almost always leads to greater and faster gains, with a better chance ofretention and of reaching productive levels of mastery. Laufer (2005) reviewsa number of studies which contain an explicit focus on vocabulary. Those inwhich the explicit exercises were related to, but not embedded in, meaning-based tasks led to 33–86% of the words being learned. Exercises whichrequired work on isolated words, without a meaning-based task, led to gainsof 13–99%. These ranges reflect a variety of types of measurement and immed-iate vs. delayed testing, but regardless, they compare extremely favorably withthe magnitude of results typically derived from incidental learning. Laufergoes on to report on three of her studies, which show that explicit vocabularyexercises led to about 70% of the words being known on immediate receptiveposttests. Although this decayed to 21–41% on two-week delayed posttests, itis far better than results reported from incidental learning. Similarly, Smith(2004) found that target words which were used and focused upon in inter-active tasks on an internet chat program were retained very well in terms ofreceptive meaning knowledge (80–90%), and still fairly well in terms ofproductive word form (50–59%) (one-week delayed tests).

Given the relative effectiveness of explicit activities in promoting vocabu-lary learning, one might think such an approach would be a major element inmost classrooms. However, this is not necessarily so: case studies into twoAsian contexts show that the percentage of words taught explicitly are very low(Hong Kong: 2.79%; China: 12.24%) (Tang and Nesi, 2003). Furthermore,teachers may not naturally use many lexical items in their lessons that are newto their students. Indeed, Meara, Lightbown, and Halter (1997) found thatteachers from both audiolingual and communicative approaches used onlyabout 2.75 new words per 500 words of speech. While this exposure to new

Norbert Schmitt 341



words can add up over time, the real value of the teacher talk in this study wasin providing repeated exposure to high-frequency vocabulary, which couldaid the consolidation and enhancement of already partially known lexicalitems.

Despite this relative ‘shortchanging’ of vocabulary, research clearly indi-cates that a vocabulary learning program needs to have an explicit component,and so the important question concerns which activities are most effective.Although it impossible to say that any activity is better than any other activityin all cases (which is not surprising given the complexity and variabilityinherent in the language acquisition process, e.g. Ellis & Larsen-Freeman,2006), vocabulary research has suggested a number of principles for selecting/constructing effective learning tasks.

1 Use activities that maximize learner engagement with targetlexical items

As mentioned above, maximizing engagement is a key principle in vocabu-lary learning. In addition to Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001) comparison of meth-ods in Table 2, a host of other studies have shown that a wide variety ofactivities can increase engagement in ways which facilitate vocabulary learn-ing. Below is a sample:

• using an interactive on-line database which contained a variety of vocabu-lary learning activities, including concordance examples, a dictionary,and a quiz feature (Horst, Cobb, & Nicolae, 2005);

• using an Internet chat program, with pairs negotiating a picture storysequencing task and a decision-making task (Smith, 2004);

• receiving an L1 translation for a target word, and then using it in a sen-tence (better than reading three example sentences with L1 translation)(Webb, 2005);

• giving learners a few seconds to try to produce new word forms on theirown before those forms are given to them by the teacher or materials(Barcroft, 2007);

• having students consider the underlying categorical orientation of figura-tive language (e.g. MORE IS UP, LESS IS DOWN; blow up � inflate)(Boers, 2000);

• seeing words in a reading text and then retelling the passage using thosewords or related ideas (Joe, 1998);

• temporarily isolating words from their context and processing them elab-oratively (Prince, 1996);

• having learners record target words in a notebook, along with multipleaspects of word knowledge for those words, and later having the wordsincorporated in classroom activities (Walters and Bozkurt, underreview).




2 Maximize repeated exposures to target lexical items

Equally important is the principle of repeated exposure and recycling. It isdifficult to prescribe the number of repetitions necessary to learn a lexicalitem through explicit methodology, as it depends on the level of engagementand the type of measure used. However, Nation’s (2001, p. 81) brief overviewof a number of studies gives us a rough idea; he found a range of from five tomore than 20 repeated meetings were necessary to ‘learn’ words according tothe various criteria in the different studies. Psycholinguistic studies have alsodemonstrated the power of repetition in learning vocabulary. For instance, deGroot (2006) found that after six 10-second exposures to translation pairs andthree receptive tests, Dutch students learned from 43% to 70% of the targetwords on a one-week delayed test. Each of the nine meetings with the wordswas brief, so the total time for learning was relatively short. Nevertheless, theeffect of repetition led to relatively strong learning. Disregarding the exactnumber of repetitions required, the important point is that recycling is neces-sary, and if it is neglected, many partially learned words will be forgotten, wast-ing all the effort already put into learning them (Nation, 1990, p. 45). Indeed,Nation argues that it is more important to consolidate previously studied wordsthan teach new words, because of the time investment. Recycling has to beconsciously built into vocabulary learning programs, and teachers must guardagainst presenting lexical items once and then forgetting about them, or elsetheir students will likely do the same. Teachers and materials writers need tothink about vocabulary learning in longitudinal terms, where target lexicalitems are recycled over time in a principled way. From memory research, weknow that most forgetting occurs soon after the learning session and theneventually slows down (Baddeley, 1990), so the first recyclings are particu-larly important and need to occur quickly.

3 Consider which aspects of lexical knowledge to focus upon

Just as Skehan and Foster (2000) have shown that there are different proficien-cies involved in language learning in general (accuracy, complexity, or fluency),vocabulary learning is also multifaceted. It follows that teachers and materialswriters need to consider carefully how to develop the various aspects. It seemsthat most vocabulary tasks focus their attention almost solely on introducing themeaning of new words. However, such a narrow view of vocabulary does nottake into account the incremental nature of word learning, or the many kinds ofword knowledge that need to be mastered. Nation (2001) and Nation and Gu(2007) suggest a four-strand approach which gives balanced attention to learn-ing new information about lexical items, and then provides for consolidationand enhancement of that knowledge: (1) meaning-focused input, (2) meaning-focused output, (3) language-focused learning, and (4) fluency development,with each strand being given roughly equal emphasis (Table 4).

Norbert Schmitt 343




Tab

le 4

Fou

r st

ran

ds

of

voca

bu

lary

tea

chin

g (

Nat

ion

, 200

1, p

. 390

)

Str

and

Gen

eral

co

nd

itio

ns

Voca

bu

lary

req

uir

emen

tsA

ctiv

itie

s an

d t

ech

niq

ues

Mea

nin

g-f

ocu

sed

inp

ut

•Fo

cus

on

th

e m

essa

ge

•95

%�

co

vera

ge

(pre

fera

bly

98%

)•

Rea

din

g g

rad

ed r

ead

ers

•S

om

e u

nfa

mili

ar it

ems

•S

kill

at g

ues

sin

g f

rom

co

nte

xt•

List

enin

g t

o s

tori

es•

Un

der

stan

din

g•

Op

po

rtu

nit

y to

neg

oti

ate

•C

om

mu

nic

atio

n a

ctiv

itie

s•

No

tici

ng

•In

cid

enta

l def

inin

g a

nd

at

ten

tio

n d

raw

ing

Mea

nin

g-f

ocu

sed

ou

tpu

t•

Focu

s o

n t

he

mes

sag

e•

95%

�co

vera

ge

(pre

fera

bly

98%

)•

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

act

ivit

ies

•S

om

e u

nfa

mili

ar it

ems

•E

nco

ura

gem

ent

to u

sew

ith

wri

tten

ou

tpu

t•

Un

der

stan

din

gu

nfa

mili

ar it

ems

•P

rep

ared

wri

tin

g•

No

tici

ng

•S

up

po

rtiv

e in

pu

t•

Lin

ked

ski

lls

Lang

uage

-foc

used

lear

ning

•Fo

cus

on la

ngua

ge it

ems

•S

kill

in v

ocab

ular

y le

arni

ng•

Dir

ect t

each

ing

of v

ocab

ular

yS

trat

egie

s•

Dir

ect

lear

nin

g•

Ap

pro

pri

ate

teac

her

fo

cus

on

•In

ten

sive

rea

din

gh

igh

-fre

qu

ency

wo

rds,

•

Trai

nin

g in

vo

cab

ula

ryan

d s

trat

egie

s fo

r lo

w-

stra

teg

ies

freq

uen

cy w

ord

s

Flu

ency

dev

elop

men

t•

Focu

s on

the

mes

sage

•99

%�

cove

rage

•R

eadi

ng e

asy

grad

ed r

eade

rs•

Litt

le o

r n

o u

nfa

mili

ar•

Rep

etit

ion

•R

epea

ted

rea

din

gla

ng

uag

e•

Sp

eed

rea

din

g•

Pre

ssu

re t

o p

erfo

rm f

aste

r•

List

enin

g t

o e

asy

inp

ut

•4/

3/2

spea

kin

g e

xerc

ise

`•

Reh

ears

al t

asks

•10

-min

ute

wri

tin

g•

Lin

ked

ski

lls



a Meaning-focused input: The first strand acknowledges the benefits oflearning vocabulary through reading and listening to lexical items in mean-ingful (and hopefully interesting) contexts, and will be discussed in detail inthe ‘Incidental Learning’ section below.

b Meaning-focused output: Vocabulary learning also occurs when learnerstry to communicate messages to other people. This dovetails nicely with thekind of tasks and activities which are promoted by current task-based method-ologies (e.g. Ellis, 2003: Van den Branden, 2006).

c Language-focused learning: This strand corresponds most closely to tradi-tional vocabulary teaching, as it highlights explicit attention on lexical items.The reasoning behind this strand is that some vocabulary (particularly high-frequency items) is absolutely necessary for any kind of language use, and sois worth the effort of teaching and learning explicitly, especially as intentionallearning is much more effective than incidental learning. A number of aspectsof word knowledge can be taught and learned in this strand, and Table 2 out-lines the main possibilities.

Table 2 also highlights the difference between receptive (R) and productive(P) mastery of lexical items. This distinction is important, because the researchshows that they are not equivalent. Learners have larger receptive vocabulariesthan productive ones. For example, Laufer (2005) reports productive/receptiveratios ranging from 16% at the 5000 frequency level (i.e. learners’ productivetest scores [L1–L2] were only 16% of their receptive test scores [L2–L1]) to35% at the 2000 level, while Fan (2000) found a range from 53% to 81%(mean 69.2%) for words taken from the 2000, 3000 and UWL levels. Lauferand Paribakht (1998) found an average ratio of 77% for Israeli EFL studentsand 62% for Canadian ESL students. While the ratios are highly dependent onthe types of receptive/productive tests used (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004), itseems clear that acquiring productive mastery of vocabulary is more difficultthan acquiring receptive mastery. The implication is that it cannot be assumedthat productive mastery will automatically follow from receptive mastery ofwords.

In fact, it seems that if productive mastery is required, then learners need toengage in productive tasks for this to be developed; merely having receptiveexposure does not seem to be enough to reliably lead to productive mastery.For example, Lee and Muncie (2006) found that adolescent ESL learners, evenafter being given a substantial introduction to lexical items, used only18.4–20.87% of those items in follow-up free compositions. However, aftersome additional practice with the items, the students wrote another compos-ition, but this time with a composition structure frame with the items writtenon it, and encouragement to use the target items. This time, the compositionscontained 67.5–68.7% of the items. What is more, on a third composition twoweeks later (with the writing frame but no target items), the students still

Norbert Schmitt 345



produced 50.5–63.0%. Similarly, Lee (2003) found that her secondary schoolESL learners, after being given explicit vocabulary instruction, produced(in compositions) 63.62% of the words they knew receptively, compared toonly 13.19% before the instruction. In a delayed composition (23 days later)the productive percentage had only dropped to 55.46%, showing that the gainswere durable. The relatively good retention of productive vocabulary in thesetwo studies shows the value of structured productive practice (and encourage-ment) in helping learners to reach higher levels of productive mastery.

The different strands can be usefully integrated together. An example ofthis is de la Fuente (2006), who found that an explicit focus on the morpho-logical forms of target words at the end of a task-based lesson effectivelystopped the decay of vocabulary knowledge on a delayed post-test comparedto a Present-Practice-Produce lesson (i.e. the delayed scores approximatelyequalled immediate post-test scores). There was a similar effect for structuredrole-play, where learners were encouraged to engage with the target words.However, the students in the PPP class hardly used the target words in theirfree role-play, so it seems adding tasks which force students to engage withtarget words is an important supplement to meaning-focused output.

d Fluency development: The fourth strand focuses on fluency. It is self-evidentthat knowledge of lexical items is only of value if they can be recognized orproduced in a timely manner that enables real-time language use. One obviousexample of this is in reading. If the vocabulary recognition speed is too slow,then reading turns into a slow decoding process, and it becomes impossible tounderstand the flow of the text (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). Thus, increasing theautomaticity of lexical recognition and production is an essential part ofenhancing the mastery of vocabulary. Happily, research shows that vocabularyfluency is amenable to intervention. In an example of an explicit approach,learners who manipulated words 10 times over four weeks with explicit atten-tion to sentence completion, appropriacy judgments, and translation exercisesbecame faster in their lexical retrieval (Snellings, van Gelderen, & de Glopper,2002). Likewise, an incidental approach can have an impact. Al-Homoud andSchmitt (in press) found that both extensive reading (with self-selected gradedreaders) and intensive reading (working with a class text) over 10 weeks led toincreased reading speeds, which imply more automatic vocabulary recognitionspeeds.

V Incidental learning of vocabulary

Although engagement-rich explicit exposure is most effective in promotinglearning, there are inevitable limitations in the number of times that teachersand materials writers can engineer such contact. This means that many of themeetings which learners need to consolidate and enhance their knowledgeof lexical items must come from the extensive exposure generated by themeaning-focused input strand, from which incidental learning can occur. As




a consequence, teachers and materials writers need to consider the maxi-mization of meaning-focused exposure as an equal partner to explicit vocab-ulary learning, and thus actively promote and manage it.

1 The effectiveness of incidental vocabulary learning from reading

Early research on vocabulary acquisition from incidental exposure in readingfound a discouragingly low pick-up rate, with about one word being correctlyidentified out of every 12 words tested (Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998). Thisdisappointing rate of learning has led some to question incidental learning asa viable approach (e.g. Raptis, 1997). However, the early studies typically hada number of methodological weaknesses, including very small amounts ofreading, insensitive measurement instruments, inadequate control of text dif-ficulty, small numbers of target words, and no delayed post-tests. More recentstudies which have addressed some or all of these problems have found moregains from reading than previous studies indicated. Horst, Cobb, and Meara(1998) found learning of about one new word out every five, and that thislearning persisted over a period of at least 10 days. Horst (2005) found thather participants learned well over half of the unfamiliar words they encoun-tered in their extensive reading. Pigada and Schmitt (2006) studied the learn-ing of spelling, meaning, and grammatical characteristics during a one-monthextensive reading case study. They found that 65% of the target words wereenhanced on at least one of these word knowledge types, for a pick-up rate ofabout 1 of every 1.5 words tested. Spelling was strongly enhanced, even froma small number of exposures, while meaning and grammatical knowledgewere enhanced to a lesser degree. Brown, Waring, and Donkaewbua (in press)found encouraging amounts of durable incidental vocabulary learning in termsof recognition of word form and recognition of meaning in a multiple-choicetest, but far less in terms of being able to produce the meaning in a translationtask. Waring and Takaki (2003) also found stronger gains and retention forrecognition than recall knowledge. Their Japanese participants recognized themeaning of 10.6 out of 25 words on an immediate multiple-choice test, butonly were able to provide a translation for 4.6/25. However, after threemonths, while the recognition of meaning score dropped to 6.1, the transla-tion score dropped much more sharply to 0.9. This indicates that incidentalvocabulary learning from reading is more likely to push words to a partialrather than full level of mastery, and that any recall learning is more prone toforgetting than recognition learning.

2 Number of exposures necessary to promote incidental learning from reading

An important issue related to incidental learning is the number of exposuresthat is necessary to push the incremental learning of a word forward,especially in a way that is durable. Webb (2007a) compared the learning

Norbert Schmitt 347



of words from the study of L2–L1 word pairs, both with and without the addi-tion of a single example sentence. The results for the two conditions were thesame, indicating that a single context had little effect on gaining vocabularyknowledge. Beyond a single exposure, learning increases, but there does notappear to be any firm threshold when it is certain. At the lower end of the fre-quency spectrum, Rott (1999) found that six exposures led to better learningthan two or four exposures. Pigada and Schmitt (2006) found that there was nofrequency point where the acquisition of meaning was assured, but by about10� exposures, there was a discernible rise in the learning rate. However, evenafter 20� exposures, the meaning of some words eluded their participant.Waring and Takaki (2003) found it took at least eight repetitions in order forlearners to have about a 50% chance of recognizing a word’s form, or its mean-ing on a multiple-choice test, three months later. However, even if a new wordwas met 15–18 times, there was less than a 10% chance that a learner would beable to give a translation for it after three months, and no words met fewer than5 times were successfully translated. Horst, Cobb, and Meara (1998) also foundthat words appearing eight or more times in their study had a reasonable chanceof being learned, while Webb (2007b) found that 10 encounters led to sizablelearning gains across a number of word knowledge types. Of course, learning aword depends on more than just the frequency of exposure. For example, Zahar,Cobb, and Spada (2001) suggest that the number of encounters needed to learna word might depend on the proficiency level of the learners, because moreadvanced learners who know more words seem to be able to acquire new wordsin fewer encounters. Nevertheless, the research seems to suggest that 8–10 read-ing exposures may give learners a reasonable chance of acquiring an initialreceptive knowledge of words.

Taken together, the research confirms that worthwhile vocabulary learningdoes occur from reading. However, the pick-up rate is relatively low, and itseems to be difficult to gain a productive level of mastery from just exposure.Hill and Laufer (2003) estimate that, at the rates of incidental learningreported in many studies, a L2 learner would have to read over 8 millionwords of text, or about 420 novels to increase their vocabulary size by 2000words. This is clearly a daunting prospect, and thus it is probably best not torely upon incidental learning as the primary source of the learning for newwords.5 Rather, incidental learning seems to be better at enhancing know-ledge of words which have already been met. This conclusion is congruentwith Waring and Takaki’s (2003) findings that reading graded readers does notlead to the learning of many new words, but that is very useful in developingand enriching partially known vocabulary. Studies with a variety of test typeshave shown that exposure leads to improvements in multiple types of wordknowledge. Also, given that repetition is key to learning words, the benefits ofrepeated exposures in different contexts for consolidating fragile initial learn-ing and moving it along the path of incremental development cannot beunderestimated.




3 Incidental learning from listening

While most of the work on incidental learning has focused on reading, thereis now beginning to be a literature on the incidental acquisition of vocabularyfrom listening. Most of it points to a low uptake rate from listening exposure.Vidal (2003) found that Spanish university students learned small amounts ofvocabulary from 14–15-minute academic lectures. On average, most targetwords seemed to move from being totally unknown to a state in which thelearners recognized having heard the words. However, after a 4–8-weekdelay, learners retained about only 50% of this small knowledge increase.In another study, after listening to news reports for 12 minutes a day forseven days, learners gained only an average of two words out of 40 (5%) (Al-Homoud, 2007). A few studies have explored which listening conditionsare most conducive for vocabulary learning. Joe (1998) found that justactively listening to a group discussion could lead to vocabulary learning.Ellis (1995) had low-proficiency Japanese high school students perform a lis-tening task in which they needed to locate kitchen items on a drawing of anempty kitchen, with either simplified/elaborated instructions or the opportu-nity to interactively ask questions and seek clarification. In general, the learn-ing was modest: 14% (premodified group) and 33% (interactive group) of thetarget words were correctly translated two days later, but the learning waslargely durable as one-month delayed post-tests produced scores of 14% and26% respectively. Furthermore, incidental learning from listening seems to bebetter when there is a variety of speakers and voice types (Barcroft, 2001;Barcroft & Sommers, 2005), suggesting that materials writers should incor-porate ample acoustic variability when presenting L2 vocabulary on audio-tapes, videotapes, and computer-based presentation programs. Listening canalso be a useful supplement to reading, as studies have found that reading-while-listening is generally superior to reading-only in promoting vocabularylearning (Amer, 1997; Brown, Waring, & Donkaewbua, under review).

4 Extensive reading

One way of incorporating incidental learning into a language program is toorganize an extensive reading component (Day & Bamford, 1998).6 Althoughreaders need to know 98–99% of the words in a text, many authentic texts willstill be suitable for more advanced learners, especially if teachers provide sup-port for the more difficult vocabulary (see below). However, for developinglearners, the vocabulary load will probably be too high in authentic texts, andso the use of graded readers is recommended, as the vocabulary load is bothfine-tuned for the learner’s level, and systematically recycled (Nation &Wang, 1999; Al-Homoud, 2007). Graded readers used to have a bad reputa-tion for being boring and poorly written, but that is no longer the case, withseveral major publishers providing a series of interesting and well-presented

Norbert Schmitt 349



readers. Most importantly, research shows that substantial vocabulary learn-ing can be derived from graded readers. For example, Horst (2005) foundthat her participants learned over half of the unfamiliar words they encoun-tered in the graded readers they read. Likewise, Al-Homoud and Schmitt (inpress) found that Saudi learners in a short 10-week course incorporatingextensive reading and graded readers increased their vocabulary at the 2000,3000, and 5000 frequency levels, as well as improving their reading speedand attitudes towards reading. Unsurprisingly, the amount of reading is key:of 10 variables entered into a regression analysis, only the amount of exten-sive reading done during a two-month course came up as a significantpredictor of gain scores in overall language proficiency (Renandya, Rajan, &Jacob, 1999).

5 Inferencing from context

While extensive reading programs can maximize the amount of exposure, itis possible to help learners utilize that exposure more effectively. One way isto train them in lexical inferencing. Learners typically rate guessing fromcontext as a useful strategy (Schmitt, 1997; Zechmeister et al., 1993) andresearch has shown that it is one of the most frequent and preferred strategiesfor learners when dealing with unknown words in reading. In one study,Paribakht and Wesche (1999) found that their university ESL students usedinferencing in about 78% of all cases where they actively tried to identify themeanings of unknown words, while Fraser (1999) found that her studentsused inferencing in 58% of the cases where they encountered an unfamiliarword. It also seems to be a major strategy when learners attempt to guess themeaning of phrasal vocabulary, at least for idioms (Cooper, 1999). Unfor-tunately, this does not mean that it is necessarily effective. Nassaji (2003)found that of 199 guesses, learners only made 51 (25.6%) that were success-ful, and another 37 (18.6%) that were partially successful. This low successrate is similar to the 24% rate that Bensoussan and Laufer’s (1984) learnersachieved. One of the reasons for this poor rate is that learners often confuseunknown words for words which they already know with a similar form(Nassaji, 2003), again highlighting the importance of form in learningvocabulary. Other factors include the percentage of unknown words in thetext, word class of the unknown words, and learner proficiency. Liu andNation (1985) unsurprisingly found that unknown words embedded in a textwhere 96% of the other words were known were guessed more successfullythan unknown words in a text with only 90% known. They also found thatverbs were easier to guess than nouns, and nouns easier than adjectives oradverbs. Finally they found that higher proficiency learners successfullyguessed 85%–100% of the unknown words, while the lowest proficiencylearners only guessed 30%–40% successfully.7




This uneven success in guessing suggests that inferencing skills need to be taught. Two meta-analyses (Fukkink & De Glopper, 1998; Kuhn &Stahl, 1998) and an overview (Walters, 2004) have found a positive effect forinstruction in the use of context. Both meta-analyses found that context clueinstruction was as or more effective than other forms of instruction (e.g. clozeexercises, general strategy instruction), but the inferencing improvement maybe mostly about attention given to the inferencing process, as Kuhn and Stahlconcluded that there was little difference between teaching learners inferenc-ing techniques and just giving them opportunities to practice guessing fromcontext. Walters (2006) found that learners of different proficiencies seemedto benefit from different approaches, with beginning learners benefiting mostfrom instruction in a general inferencing procedure (Clarke & Nation, 1980),and more advanced learners benefiting more from instruction in the rec-ognition and interpretation of context clues. She also found that instruction ininferencing may do more to improve reading comprehension than the abilityto infer word meaning from context.

6 Glossing

Another way to help learners utilize exposure better is to give them informationabout unknown words in the text. One way this can be done in teacher-preparedtexts is with glossing. Nation (2001) believes there are several reasons whyglossing can be useful: more difficult texts can be read, glossing provides accu-rate meanings for words that might not be guessed correctly, it has minimalinterruption to reading – especially compared to dictionary use, and it drawsattention to words that should aid the acquisition process. Research tends tosupport these views. Hulstijn (1992) found that glosses helped to prevent learn-ers from making erroneous guesses about unknown words, which is importantbecause learners seem reluctant to change their guesses once made (Haynes,1993). Moreover, Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) found that L2readers with marginal glosses learned more vocabulary than dictionary-usingreaders, or readers with no gloss/dictionary support. But how and where togloss? Research indicates that it does not matter much whether the gloss is anL2 description or an L1 translation, as long as the learner can understand themeaning (Jacobs, Dufon, & Fong, 1994; Yoshii, 2006), which suggests thatthere is no reason not to use L1 glosses with less-proficient learners. Glossesjust after the target word do not seem to be very effective (Watanabe, 1997), butglosses in the margin, bottom of the page, or end of the text have similar effec-tiveness (Holley & King, 1971). As learners seem to prefer marginal glosses,this is probably the best place for them (Jacobs, Dufon, & Fong, 1994). Ifphrasal vocabulary is being glossed, it helps to make the phrases more salientby highlighting their form (e.g. by printing them in color, and/or underliningthem), so that the learner can recognize them as chunks (Bishop, 2004).

Norbert Schmitt 351



7 Adding explicit activities to implicit learning situations

Glossing is one way of focusing explicit attention on lexical items duringexposure where otherwise only incidental learning would occur. But there aremany more possibilities, based on the general principle that intentional andincidental learning are complementary approaches which can be usefullyintegrated. For example, students working in a group can learn vocabularyfrom each other, especially if it involves explicit negotiation of the meaningof target words (Newton, 2001). Explicit attention in the during-reading phasecan aid learning: reading with marginal glosses or referral to a dictionaryleads to better receptive knowledge of words than reading alone (Hulstijn,Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996).

But perhaps the most effective way of improving incidental learning is byreinforcing it afterwards with intentional learning tasks. Hill and Laufer(2003) found that post-reading tasks explicitly focusing on target words ledto better vocabulary learning than comprehension questions which requiredknowledge of the target words’ meaning. Atay and Kurt (2006) found thatyoung Turkish EFL learners who carried out reading comprehension andinteractive tasks as post-reading activities outperformed students who didwritten vocabulary tasks, and that the interactive tasks were much moreappealing for the young learners. Mondria (2003) gives a particularly goodillustration of the value of post-reading exercises. Dutch students whoinferred the meaning of French words from sentence contexts, and then ver-ified the meaning with the aid of a word list before memorization, learned justas much vocabulary (about 50% of the target words on a two-week delayedreceptive test) as students who were given a translation before memorization.This shows that incidental learning plus explicit follow-up (particularly thememorization element) can be just as effective as a purely explicit approach.However, it is not as time effective, as the ‘translation � memorization’methodused 26% less time than the ‘incidental � follow-up’ method to achieve thesame results.

Just as with reading, post-tasks seem to improve gains from listening expo-sure. Jones (2004) found that various post-listening tasks (pronunciation help �synonym definition/ synonym definition and pictures of the target words)resulted in scores on a delayed productive translation test that were around3–4 times higher than listening and pronunciation help alone. However,although the greater engagement of reading � explicit attention leads togreater learning, it is still fragile and needs to be followed up. Rott, Williams,and Cameron (2002) found that while reading � multiple-choice glosses leadto better immediate scores than reading-only incidental learning alone, afterfive weeks the scores had decayed to the same level as the incidental learningcondition. Thus, the improved learning gained from incidental exposure �supplementary tasks can be useful if subsequently consolidated and main-tained, but if not followed up upon, the advantage may well be lost.




VI Summarizing the research

With so much vocabulary research now published, it is becoming difficult todistill it down into a manageable number of pedagogical suggestions.However, the seven principles Hunt and Beglar proposed in 1998 still providea very good start towards summarizing a principled approach to vocabularylearning:

Principle 1: Provide opportunities for the incidental learning of vocabulary.Principle 2: Diagnose which of the 3000 most common words learnersneed to study.Principle 3: Provide opportunities for the intentional learning of vocabulary.Principle 4: Provide opportunities for elaborating word knowledge.Principle 5: Provide opportunities for developing fluency with knownvocabulary.Principle 6: Experiment with guessing from context.Principle 7: Examine different types of dictionaries and teach studentshow to use them.

In addition to these, I believe that research now indicates that the followingpoints also need to be incorporated into vocabulary instruction:

• Learners need large vocabularies to successfully use a second language,and so high vocabulary targets need to be set and pursued.

• Vocabulary learning is a complex and gradual process, and differentapproaches may be appropriate at different points along the incrementallearning process.

• At the beginning, establishing the meaning–form link is essential, andintentional learning is best for this. Using the L1 is one sensible way toquickly establish this initial link.

• Once this initial meaning–form link is established, it is crucial to consoli-date it with repeated exposures.

• It is also important to begin enhancing knowledge of different aspectsof word knowledge. Some of these may be usefully learned explicitly(e.g. knowledge of derivative forms), but the more ‘contextualized’word knowledge aspects (e.g. collocation) are probably best learnedby being exposed to the lexical item numerous times in many differentcontexts.

• Make sure that learners maintain the maximum amount of engagementpossible with lexical items.

It is also clear that intentional and incidental approaches are not only com-plementary, but positively require each other. It is impossible in explicitteaching to recycle words adequately and to teach all of the contextual typesof word knowledge (both in terms of time constraints and the difficulty ofteaching word knowledge aspects like collocation), and so exposure to a great

Norbert Schmitt 353



deal of reading and listening is necessary for consolidation and enhancementof explicitly taught lexical items. Conversely, words acquired by incidentallearning are unlikely to be learned to a productive level, and so the additionalattention that comes from intentional learning may be required to push themto this level of mastery. Thus, teachers and materials writers need to take abroader view of what vocabulary instruction entails, and take proactivecharge of all four strands of vocabulary development.

In sum, it is important to acknowledge the incremental nature of vocabularylearning, and to understand that an effective vocabulary learning programneeds to be principled, long-term, and one which recognizes the richness andscope of lexical knowledge. All of the vocabulary learning partners need towork towards moving learner lexicons along the learning continuum, in termsof size, depth, and fluency. The variety of factors which affect vocabularylearning means that there will never be one ‘best’ teaching methodology, butthe meta-principle of maximizing sustained engagement with the lexical itemswhich need to be learned appears to underlie all effective vocabulary learning.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Kathy Conklin, Zoltán Dörnyei, Phil Durrant, Li Jie,Batia Laufer, Phoebe Lin, Paul Nation, John Read, Diane Schmitt, and AnnaSiyanova for useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes1 A lexical item functions as a single meaning unit, regardless of the number of words it contains.

Sometimes it is a single word (expire � ‘die’) and sometimes a multi-word phrasal item (pass away,kick the bucket). Phrasal vocabulary is becoming a key issue in language studies, as research isbeginning to suggest that most language use revolves around it (e.g. Wray, 2002). However, thereis still little research into its acquisition, and so this overview will generally report on researchcovering individual words.

2 These figures are for English, the language on which most vocabulary size research has been done.The size re xquirements for other language probably differ, and there is some reason to believe thatthey may be lower (see Nation & Meara, 2002). Also, these vocabulary size figures do not take intoaccount how well the words are known, i.e. the depth of vocabulary knowledge (Nassaji, 2004).

3 The Common European Framework (2007) does not stipulate required vocabulary sizes for thevarious levels, but rather describes learner performance expectations at each level. The C2 descrip-tors for reading and vocabulary include the following, for which a 5000 word family lexicon wouldappear inadequate (although firm research on this is lacking):

• Can understand and interpret critically virtually all forms of the written language includingabstract, structurally complex, or highly colloquial literary and non-literary writings.

• Can understand a wide range of long and complex texts, appreciating subtle distinctions ofstyle and implicit as well as explicit meaning.

• Can exploit a comprehensive and reliable mastery of a very wide range of language to for-mulate thoughts precisely, give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity. No signs ofhaving to restrict what he/she wants to say.

• Has a good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressionsand colloquialisms; shows awareness of connotative levels of meaning.




4 This discussion focuses on the forms of individual words, as I did not come across any researchwhich directly explores potential confusion between phrases which have similar form, e.g. at anyprice/at a price: not just a pretty face/not a pretty sight.

5 Little is known about the incidental learning of phrasal vocabulary.6 A very useful website for extensive reading can be found at <http://www. extensivereading.net/>. It

includes an annotated bibliography of research on extensive reading from 1919–present.7 In one study on lexical inferencing from listening, Li (1988) found that Chinese adult learners were

able to inference about 50% (14/30) of new words embedded in sentences in a listening task, andwere able to remember about 2/3 of these (9.33) in an immediate posttest.

VII References

Adolphs, S., & Schmitt, N. (2003). Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. AppliedLinguistics, 24(4), 425–438.

Al-Homoud, F. (2007). Vocabulary acquisition via extensive input. Unpublished PhDdissertation: University of Nottingham.

Al-Homoud, F., & Schmitt, N. (in press). Extensive reading in a challengingenvironment: A comparison of extensive and intensive reading approaches inSaudi Arabia.

Amer, A. (1997). The effect of the teacher’s reading aloud on the reading compre-hension of EFL students. English Language Teaching Journal, 51(1), 43–47.

Arnaud, P. J. L., Béjoint, H., & Thoiron, P. (1985). A quoi sert le programme lexical?Les Langues Modernes, 79(3/4), 72–85.

Atay, D., & Kurt, G. (2006). Elementary school EFL learners’ vocabulary learning:The effects of post-reading activities. Canadian Modern Language Review,63(2), 255–273.

Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA:Allyn and Bacon.

Barcroft. J. (2001). Acoustic variation and lexical acquisition. Language Learning,51, 563–590.

Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition.Language Learning, 52(2), 323–363.

Barcroft, J. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second languagevocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57(1), 35–56.

Barcroft, J. & Sommers, M. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second languagevocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387–414.

Barrow, J., Nakashimi, Y., & Ishino, H. (1999). Assessing Japanese college students’vocab-ulary knowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey. System, 27, 223–247.

Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in context in EFL readingcomprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7(1), 15–32.

Bishop, H. (2004). The effect of typographic salience on the look up and comprehensionof unknown formulaic sequences. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Norbert Schmitt 355



Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics,21(4), 553–571.

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006).Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a LexicalApproach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261.

Bogaards, P. (2001). Lexical units and the learning of foreign language vocabulary.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 321–343.

Bonk, W. J. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension.International Journal of Listening, 14, 14–31.

Brown, R., Waring, R., & Donkaewbua, S. (in press). Comparing incidental vocabu-lary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories.Reading in a Foreign Language.

Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a functionof the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal ofReading Behavior, 26(4), 413–437.

Chang, A. C-S., & Read, J. (2006). The effects of listening support on the listeningperformance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 375–397.

Cho, K-S., & Krashen, S. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from Sweet Valley KidsSeries: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662–667.

Clarke, D. E. & Nation, I. S. P. (1980). Guessing the meanings of words from con-text: Strategy and techniques. System, 8(3), 211–220.

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,Assessment. Council of Europe. Accessed December 5, 2007 at <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp#TopOfPage>.

Cooper, T. C. (1999). Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOLQuarterly, 33, 233–262.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for

memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1986). Limits on bilingualism. Nature,

340, 229–230.Cutler, A., & Norris, D. G. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for

lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception andPerformance, 14, 113–121.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language class-room. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

de Groot, A. M. B. (2006). Effects of stimulus characteristics and background musicon foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning,56(3), 463–506.

de la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating therole of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language TeachingResearch, 10(3), 263–295.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second lan-guage acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement.In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.) The handbook of second languageacquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Word structure, collocation, word-class,and meaning. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, andpedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition:Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking,and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194.

Ellis, N. C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications forapplied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589.

Ellis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. AppliedLinguistics, 16(4), 409–441.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidentalacquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,285–301.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension,and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.

Fan, M. (2000). How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investigation into the activeand passive vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners. RELC Journal, 31(2), 105–119.

Fraser, C. A. (1999). Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning throughreading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 225–241.

Fukkink, R. G., & De Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving wordmeaning from context: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 68(4),450–469.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Longman.Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1992). On the representation and use of language infor-

mation in bilinguals. In Harris, R. J. (Ed.) Cognitive processing in bilinguals(pp. 207–220). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasiticmodel of vocabulary development. IRAL, 40, 69–87.

Haynes, M. (1993). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. InHuckin, T., Haynes, M., & Coady, J. (Eds.), Second language reading andvocabulary learning (pp. 46–65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hemchua, S., & Schmitt, N. (2006). An analysis of lexical errors in the English com-positions of Thai learners. Prospect, 21(3), 3–25.

Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionariesin incidental vocabulary acquisition. IRAL, 41(2), 87–106.

Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1971). Vocabulary glosses in foreign language readingmaterials. Language Learning, 21, 213–219.

Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurementstudy. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 355–382.

Norbert Schmitt 357



Horst, M., Cobb T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond A Clockwork Orange: Acquiringsecond language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language,11(2), 207–223.

Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolae, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with aninteractive on-line database. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 90–110.

Horst, M., & Collins, L. (2006). From faible to strong: How does their vocabularygrow? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 83–106.

Horst, M., & Meara, P. (1999). Test of a model for predicting second language lexicalgrowth through reading. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 308–328.

Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension.Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 403–430.

Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experimentsin incidental vocabulary learning. In Anaud, P. J., & Béjoint, H. (Eds.)Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113–125). London: Macmillan.

Hulstijn, J. & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement loadhypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539–558.

Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learningby advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dic-tionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal,80, 327–339.

Hulstijn, J. H., & Trompetter, P. (1998). Incidental learning of second languagevocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In Albrechtsen, D.,Hendricksen, B., Mees, M., & Poulsen, E. (Eds.) Perspectives on foreign andsecond language pedagogy (pp. 191–200). Odense, Denmark: OdenseUniversity Press.

Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (January 1998). Current research and practice in teachingvocabulary. The Language Teacher. Available online at http://www.jalt–publications.org/tlt/articles/1998/01/hunt.

Jacobs, G. M., Dufon, P., & Fong, C. H. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2reading passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabu-lary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17, 19–28.

Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second lan-guage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.

Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning: A case study.Second Language Research, 11, 149–158.

Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on inci-dental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 357–377.

Joe, A. G. (2006). The nature of encounters with vocabulary and long-term vocabu-lary acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis. Victoria University of Wellington.

Jones, L. (2004). Testing L2 vocabulary recognition and recall using pictorial andwritten test items. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 122–143.

Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences:An exploratory study in an EAP context. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.) Formulaicsequences (pp. 269–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.




Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2000). An evaluation of intermediate students’ approachesto corpus investigation. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 77–90.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last resort in foreign language reading?A new perspective. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285–299.

Koda, K. (1997). Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing. In Coady, J., &Huckin, T. (Eds.) Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Koda, K. (1998). The role of phonemic awareness in second language reading. SecondLanguage Research, 14(2), 194–215.

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (1998). Teaching children to learn word meanings from con-text: A synthesis and some questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(1), 119–138.

Kuiper, K. (2004). Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. InSchmitt, N. (Ed.) Formulaic sequences (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Larson, M., & Schmitt, N. (under review). Spoken vocabulary: How much is neededfor listening comprehension?

Laufer, B. (1988). The concept of ‘synforms’ (similar lexical forms) in vocabularyacquisition. Language and Education, 2(2), 113–132.

Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? InC. Lauren and M. Nordman (Eds.) Special language: From humans to thinkingmachines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second lan-guage: same or different? Applied Linguistics, 12, 255–271.

Laufer, B. (2000). Task effect on instructed vocabulary learning: The hypothesis of‘involvement’. Selected Papers from AILA ’99 Tokyo (pp. 47–62). Tokyo:Waseda University Press.

Laufer, B. (2001). Quantitative evaluation of vocabulary: How it can be done andwhat it is good for. In Elder, C., Hill, K., Brown, A., Iwashita, N., Grove, L.,Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (Eds.) Experimenting with uncertainty.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. EUROSLAYearbook, 5, 223–250.

Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, andcomputer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 3, 399–436.

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language:The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.

Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocab-ularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365–391.

Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have any-thing to do with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89–108.

Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicitvocabulary instruction. System, 31, 537–561.

Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learn-ers’ use of vocabulary in a postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly,40(2), 295–320.

Norbert Schmitt 359



Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spokenEnglish. Harlow: Longman.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Lewis, M. (ed.) (2000). Teaching collocation. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Li, X. (1988). Effects of contextual cues on inferring and remembering meanings.

Applied Linguistics, 9(4), 402–413.Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English

learning. RELC Journal, 37(2), 191–215.Liu, N., & Nation, I. S. P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context.

RELC Journal, 16, 33–42.Lotto, L., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on

acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48(1), 31–69.Luppescu, S., & Day, R. R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning.

Language Learning, 43, 2, 263–287.Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary instruction worth-

while? RELC Journal, 35, 2, 179–185.McCrostie, J. (2007). Investigating the accuracy of teachers’ word frequency intu-

itions. RELC Journal, 38, 1, 53–66.Meara, P., Lightbown, P. M., & Halter, R. H. (1997). Classrooms as lexical environ-

ments. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 28–47.Milton, J., & Meara, P. (1998). Are the British really bad at learning foreign languages?

Language Learning Journal, 18, 68–76.Milton, J., & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabu-

lary size: Do vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners?Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 127–147.

Mondria, J. A. (2003). The effects of inferring, verifying, and memorizing on the reten-tion of L2 word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 473–499.

Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledgesources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOLQuarterly, 37(4), 645–670.

Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. Canadian ModernLanguage Review, 61(1), 107–134.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Heinle and Hienle.Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?

Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82.Nation, P., & Gu, P. Y. (2007). Focus on vocabulary. Sydney: National Centre for

English Language Teaching and Research.Nation, P., & Meara, P. (2002). Vocabulary. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), An introduction to

applied linguistics. London: Arnold.Nation, I. S. P. , & Wang, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a

Foreign Language, 12, 355–380.




Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English andsome implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242.

Newton, J. (1995). Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: A casestudy. Second Langauge Research, 11, 159–177.

Newton, J. (2001). Options for assisting vocabulary learning in communication tasks.English Language Teaching Journal, 55, 33–37.

Nurweni, A., & Read, J. (1999). The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesianuniversity students. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 161–175.

Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading formeaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In Coady, J., & Huckin, T.(Eds.) Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 174–200). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabularyacquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 21, 195–224.

Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading:A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 1–28.

Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus trans-lations as a function of proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 80, 478–493.

Ramachandran, S. D., & Rahim, H. A. (2004). Meaning recall and retention: Theimpact of the translation method on elementary level learners’ vocabularylearning. RELC Journal, 35(2), 161–178.

Raptis, H. (1997). Is second language reading vocabulary best learned by reading?Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 566–580.

Read, J. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,24, 146–161.

Renandya, W. A., Rajan, B. R. S., & Jacob, G. M. (1999). Extensive reading withadult learners of English as a second language. RELC Journal, 30, 39–60.

Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 21(1), 589–619.

Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glossesand input-output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. LanguageTeaching Research, 6(3), 183–222.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M.(Eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incidental acquisition of second language vocabu-lary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281–317.

Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In

Schmitt, N. (Ed.) Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners

know? TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 145–171.

Norbert Schmitt 361



Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2000). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (ed.) Cognitionand second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shillaw, J. (1995). Using a word list as a focus for vocabulary learning. The LanguageTeacher, 19(2), 58–59.

Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398.

Snellings, P., van Gelderen, A., & de Glopper, K. (2002). Lexical retrieval: An aspectof fluent second language production that can be enhanced. LanguageLearning, 52, 723–754.

Staehr, L.S. (under review). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge andlistening comprehension as a foreign language.

Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction:A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.

Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second languagelexical processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 387–422.

Swan, M. (1997). The influence of the mother tongue on second languagevocabulary acquisition and use. In Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.) Vocabulary:Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tang, E., & Nesi, H. (2003). Teaching vocabulary in two Chinese classrooms:Schoolchildren’s exposure to English words in Hong Kong and Guangzhou.Language Teaching Research, 7(1), 65–97.

Tseng, W-T., & Schmitt, N. (in press). Towards a self-regulating model of vocabularylearning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning.

Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? AppliedLinguistics, 24(1), 56–89.

Walters, J. M. (2004). Teaching the use of context to infer meaning: A longitudinalsurvey of L1 and L2 vocabulary research. Language Teaching, 37(4), 243–252.

Walters, J. (2006). Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. RELCJournal, 37(2), 176–190.

Walters, J., & Bozkurt, N. (under review). The effect of keeping vocabulary note-books on vocabulary acquisition.

Waring, R. and Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabu-lary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130–163.

Watanabe,Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing onincidental learning of foreign vocabulary. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 19, 287–307.

Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading andwriting on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.

Webb, S. (2007a). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: The effects of a singlecontext on vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 63–81.

Webb, S. (2007b). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. AppliedLinguistics, 28(1), 46–65.




Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second languagespeech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian ModernLanguage Review 63(1), 13–33.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning.Language Learning And Technology 10(3), 85–101.

Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading:Effects of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern LanguageReview, 57(3), 541–572.

Zechmeister, E. B., D’Anna, C. A., Hall, J.W., Paus, C. H., and Smith, J. A. (1993).Metacognitive and other knowledge about the mental lexicon: Do we knowhow many words we know? applied linguistics, 14(2): 188–206.

Norbert Schmitt 363



language teaching research · 2013. 4. 30. · norbert schmitt university of nottingham, uk this...

Documents